mirrored file at http://SaturnianCosmology.Org/ 
For complete access to all the files of this collection
	see http://SaturnianCosmology.org/search.php 
==========================================================
Introduction

In today's world many people characterize themselves as being
"scientists".

Only those who always carefully follow the "scientific method" are
deserving of that title.

The Scientific Method

Scientists are distinguishable from artists, poets, musicians, and
others in that they use what is known as "the scientific method".
It is not that "inspiration" or "the muse" is not valuable in
science, it is - but it is not the starting point of what we call
science.  In the process called the scientific method1 a true
scientist will:
* Observe nature - carefully record what is seen.
* Seek patterns in the observed data - put numbers on the data - fit
equations to those numbers.
* Generalize those equations into a word description of the process
- this is a hypothesis.
* Carry out experiments and/or gather independent data to see how
well the hypothesis predicts future observations and results. This
is called "closing the loop" on your hypothesis.
* Reject, or modify the hypothesis if the experiments show it falls
short of success in these predictions.
* Only after the results of several experiments have been
successfully predicted by the hypothesis, can it be called a
theory.

If two different theories predict a given phenomenon equally well,
the simpler theory is probably the best one.  This principle is
called Occam's Razor.

Theories can never be proven to be correct - some other mechanism
entirely may be the cause of the observed data. New data can come
in tomorrow.  But theories can be disproved if they fail to predict
the outcomes of additional experiments.  Such theories are termed
to be falsified.

Sometimes the scientific method as described above is called the
empirical method.

The Deductive Method

As an alternative to the empirical method, there is a method of
deriving theories from assumed generalizations about the universe.
This is called the deductive method. This method was used by
Aristotle and Plato.  In this process one starts with a "law of
nature" or "obviously correct" generalization about the "way things
work" and deduces (reasons out - derives) its consequences in
detail.  A hypothesis arrived at via this method is promoted to the
status of being a Theory if a large enough body of experts "accept"
it.  Thus, in this method, a "vote of the experts" determines if a
theory is correct.  Once such a theory has been accepted it is not
easily rejected in light of conflicting evidence; it is, however,
often modified - made more complex - and, unfortunately, new data
is often selectively chosen to support it.

The selection and publication of only the data that support the
accepted theory is expedited by the "peer review system".  If the
experts who have accepted a given theory control both the funding
of future research and also what gets published, there is little
chance for conflicting viewpoints to develop.

Pseudo Science

Some hypotheses, when presented by august, well established
scientists, are given credence without anyone questioning whether
the hypothesis has been developed using the scientific method. Yet
in many cases it is not difficult to check whether or not the
scientific method has been used correctly.  For example, consider
the hypothesis that "There are gnomes in my garden that always make
themselves invisible when anyone tries to observe them."1  Clearly,
no conceivable experiment or observation could falsify that
statement.  This is evidence the hypothesis comes from a
pseudo-scientific source.  Legitimate theories must be falsifiable.

The Problem Faced by Modern Astronomy

Experiments Are Not Possible

Because the stars are light years away, we cannot hope to be able
to "go there" and perform experiments on them. Until relatively
recently even the planets were out of our reach.  Thus,
cosmologists never get to complete the scientific method.  We
cannot "close the loop" in cosmology. But, if we cannot test our
hypotheses, how can we reject or modify them?  The answer, of
course, is that astronomers, more than those in any other branch of
science, must be exceedingly careful to continually examine their
hypotheses in light of any new data.  It is the contention of the
author of these pages that they have not been doing this.

Einstein was a purely theoretical physicist - he never went near a
physics lab.  He conducted only gedankenexperimenten - "thought
experiments" - in order to arrive at his general theory of
relativity (GR).  This is a perfect example of the deductive method
at work.  Its use is exceptionally dangerous in an area like
cosmology wherein it is difficult to falsify any theory.  Now that
the GR Theory is "accepted" by expert astronomers, any new data
(such as photographs of the astronomical object known as the
"Einstein Cross") are discussed only within the framework of this
complicated theory.

The images of the four small objects in the Einstein Cross when
looked at only from this viewpoint, are considered to be supporting
evidence for the GR Theory.  However, they could just as well be
interpreted as being evidence supporting a much simpler
cosmological theory.

Evidence contradictory to the accepted Big Bang Theory, such as
images of connections between objects that have widely different
red shift values, are dismissed as being "mirages".

False Assumptions by Astronomers

Most of today's "accepted" astronomy/cosmology is a set of
deductively arrived at hypotheses precariously based on two false
assumptions :

1. Electrical fields, currents, and plasma discharges are not
important in space. Only gravitational and magnetic fields are
important.
2. If the light from an object exhibits redshift, the object must be
speeding away from us.  And its distance from us is directly
proportional to that speed.

Both of these assumptions are demonstrably wrong. They have been,
and continue to be, contradicted by actual observations of the
sky.  Those observations tell us that

i. The universe is highly electrical in nature.
ii. Redshift is more a measure of an object's youth than its velocity.

The continued refusal of astronomers to re-examine their hypotheses
in light of these new observations is the focus of these pages.

The Proper Role of Mathematics

Over time, the two big, false assumptions (above) have been adorned
with elegant, abstract, mathematical "models" consisting of
equations concerning: mass, energy, velocity of light, etc.   The
solutions of these equations have led to pronouncements that 99% of
the universe must consist of "dark matter": stuff that humans
cannot observe, and that a "Big Bang" occurred wherein all the
matter in the Universe (presumably including the matter that we
cannot see) was created out of nothing, in an instant, precisely 12
billion years ago.  Regardless of how elegant the mathematics is,
if it is based on faulty assumptions, it is worthless.

The proper way to use mathematics in science is to "curve fit" a
previously observed set of data.  The principle of Occam's Razor
tells us that the simplest (lowest order) equation that best fits
the data is the one that should be chosen.  A straight line can be
passed exactly through two data points; a second order (quadratic)
curve can be exactly passed through three data points.... and so
on.  An n+1 order equation can be made to pass exactly through n
data points.  Thus, if we have a complicated enough equation, (if
we have enough coefficients to adjust and arbitrary constants whose
value we can choose) we can fit just about any data - even new
data.  The question however, is can we find a reasonably simple low
order model that fits a large number of points such that each time
new data arrives, it fits nicely onto the curve without our vastly
modifying the coefficients in the equation.

If we have to add to the complexity of our model each time new data
is received, this is strong evidence that the model is a poor one
and we should re-examine our basic premises.

An equation is only a model of the real world process.  We should
never lose sight of this distinction.  Some modern day "theoretical
physicists" confuse these two things: reality and the model.  For
them, the equations are indistinguishable from reality.  So, if an
equation contains a "singularity" (gives an output value of
infinity for some value of the input variable[s]) they presume the
actual real world quantity must also become infinite.  This is
where the notion of "black holes" came from.

Another limitation on any mathematical model (set of equations) is
that it has a finite region of validity.  For instance, if the
model was developed using a set of input variables whose values
ranged from zero to 1,000, then we cannot with any assurance use an
input value of 1,000,000 and expect the answer given by the model
to have any correspondence to reality.

Some astrophysicists have said that "if only they could find the
equations God used to make the Universe, all would be known."  This
demonstrates just how far from reality, and the proper use of
mathematics, they have strayed.

Invisible Entities Invented To Patch Up Failing Theories

The theories that have sprung from these faulty, overly complicated
mathematical models have given birth to such arcane notions as:
"curved space", "neutron stars", "WIMPs" (and now "WIMPZILLAS"),
"MACHOs", several different sizes of "black holes", "superluminal
jets", "dark energy", and magnetic field "lines" that "pile-up" and
"reconnect".  All of these inventions are fictions put forth by
astronomers in desperate efforts to defend their theories when
faced with contradicting observations.  None have ever been
observed or photographed.  Many of them are demonstrably
impossible.  But their existence is repeatedly invoked to "explain"
new observations and measurements that contradict the enshrined
theories of modern astronomy.

We continually hear statements such as, "There must be a black hole
at the center of that galaxy." (Otherwise we cannot explain its
level of energy output.)  "There must be invisible dark matter in
that galaxy." (Otherwise we cannot explain how it rotates the way
it does.)  "Ninety nine percent of the universe is made up of dark
energy." (Otherwise the Big Bang Theory is falsified.)  "Pulsars
must be made up of strange matter." (Otherwise we might have to
look for an electrical explanation). We are also asked to believe
that two objects (like galaxy M 51 and its companion NGC 5195) are
not connected together even though we have photographs of the
connection. So, we are told not to believe in the things that we
can see, but that we should believe in the existence of the magic
entities that their theories require - even though we cannot see or
measure them.

Debating tricks should not be used in science.  There is an old
debating trick where one side is asked to disprove the existence of
something that doesn't exist:  "Prove to me there isn't a
rhinoceros under this table. It is an invisible, unsmellable rhino,
and you can't feel it - it has no mass. But it's THERE! Prove to me
it isn't!"  This is obviously impossible to do. It is a
non-falsifiable hypothesis.  In an earlier paragraph it was pointed
out that a hallmark of a pseudo science was that it poses
non-falsifiable hypotheses.

Consider the following example:

Dr. John A. Wheeler, emeritus professor of physics at Princeton
University and originator of the concept of black holes, has said:

"To me, the formation of a naked singularity is equivalent to
jumping across the Gulf of Mexico. I would be willing to bet a
million dollars that it can't be done. But I can't prove that it
can't be done."

What he is actually saying is - YOU can't prove that black holes
don't exist, so I am free to use the concept as often as I like!

When astronomers conjure up invisible entities, the existence of
which no one can disprove (black holes, dark matter), they open
themselves to accusations of being pseudo scientists.  Why are
invisible gnomes in my garden any less scientifically acceptable
than the concept of "black holes" that no one can see or measure?

It should be noted that the word "singularity" as used by Wheeler
is directly stolen from pure mathematics.  In mathematics it has a
precise meaning.  There are various types of "singularities" in
mathematics, e.g., "essential singularities", "poles", etc.  Each
of these describes the anomalous behavior of certain terms in
mathematical equations.  Wheeler essentially kidnaps this
mathematical term and erroneously transforms it into being a real
world entity.  People would laugh if some theoretician announced
that he had discovered a "partial fraction expansion" sitting in
some galaxy, or a Riemann integral located in some globular
cluster.  The same ridicule should have greeted Wheeler's
announcement that he had found a "naked singularity" in deep space.

It is both unscientific and intellectually dishonest to conjure up
the existence of unobservable entities in an effort to defend a
theory that direct observation falsifies.  If you allow me to get
away with postulating the existence of ghosts, then, in the future,
you will have to put up with my blaming ghosts for an increasing
number of otherwise inexplicable events - like why I couldn't find
my keys this morning!  Ghosts would make it easy for me to avoid
confronting the reality that my memory is not as good as it once
was.  And, every time I get away with "the ghost did it" excuse, I
am encouraged to use it yet again. One reality being avoided by
astronomers is that the cosmos is highly electrical in nature.
Recently astronomers seem to "find" black holes just about
everywhere.

Astronomers Avoid Electromagnetic Field Theory at All Costs

All of the fantasy-land explanations conjured up by mainstream
cosmologists would perhaps be unavoidably acceptable IF there were
not alternative explanations for all of the phenomena that seem so
"mysterious" to them.  If astronomy would only open its eyes to the
existence of the field of study called experimental electrical
plasma physics, none of the fictitious entities mentioned above
would have been proposed.

In the last half of the 20th century an ongoing debate ensued
between "mainstream" astrophysicists and Swedish plasma physicist -
electrical engineer (and Nobel prize winner), Hannes Alfvén.
Alfvén considered himself to be, first and foremost, an electrical
power engineer and rather enjoyed the accusation of being an
"outsider to astrophysics" thrown at him by theoretical
cosmologists.  He was an expert in a research field they had never
studied.

Alfvén continued the earlier experimental work of Kristian
Birkeland and Irving Langmuir on electrical plasmas. He, his
students, and associates developed the theoretical - mathematical,
foundation for those earlier experimental results.  Alfvén was
awarded the Gold Medal of the Royal Astronomical Society (1967),
the Nobel Prize in physics (1970), the Gold Medal of the Franklin
Institute (1971), and the Lomonosov Medal of the USSR Academy of
Sciences (1971).

But even Alfvén was not able to remove the blinders worn by
mainstream astronomers who decided to follow the purely deductive
mathematical approach.  It continues to be standard procedure to
view as "flawed" any observations made in either earth-bound
electrical plasma laboratories or in space, that conflict with
accepted mathematical models that completely ignore the existence
of cosmic electrical currents and fields.

Dr. John A. Wheeler, of black hole fame, (see above) attributes the
following quote to Lord Kelvin (1903).  Kelvin was commenting on
his view of the utility of Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism.

"The so-called `electromagnetic theory of light' has not helped us
hitherto... it seems to me that it is a rather backwards step."

And the problem is - professional astronomers still seem to believe
it!  (One wonders whether Wheeler does).

Astronomers Denigrate Outsiders - Then Quietly Adopt their New Ideas

There have been several instances in the past when the astronomical
mainstream has long rejected an idea that is later accepted.  There
is usually no public disgrace for the in-group who were on the
wrong side of the issue.  When, after being viciously denigrated,
the validity of a new idea becomes inescapably obvious, a few years
go by, and then we quietly hear: "Well, Everyone has known for a
Long Time that this (the new idea) was always true."  An example of
this is Hannes Alfvén's discovery of plasma waves. This recently
accepted (by astronomers) property of plasmas is now being wrongly
over used to explain away all sorts of inconvenient observations
such as the temperature inversion in the Sun's lower corona.

The Future

In a few years, perhaps we will hear: "Well, Everyone has known for
a Long Time that quasars are not extremely distant, and red shift
is more a measure of the youth of an object than its recessional
velocity and distance.  No one said for sure there ever was a Big
Bang.  It was just another false theory.   Everyone has known for a
Long Time that electric currents flowing in plasmas produce many of
the mysterious observed solar and cosmic phenomena."  And we will
not hear of "machos", "wimps", "neutronium", "dark energy", and
"broken magnetic field lines" from any serious scientist ever
again.

Time will tell.

Will the founders of the Electric / Plasma Universe Theory be
acknowledged as having been the pathfinders they are?

Or will lesser men quietly adopt these ideas without giving credit
to their originators and then claim them to be "well known"?

This Web Site

The following pages discuss some of the people, observations, and
ideas, that challenge the false assumptions that mainstream science
refuses to re-examine. When you read them, remember that any single
unanswered challenge of this sort is enough to bring down the
pseudoscientific magic show that modern astronomy/cosmology has
become - like a house of cards. The attitude of astronomers -
epitomized by the following quote - must change.

"If the going gets bad in an argument one can always call upon the
universal mantra 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary
proof', to extricate oneself from further discussion, or the need
to think."

- Brian Josephson,
Times Higher Education Supplement, 12 Aug. 1994.

Reference 1 The Scientific Method

Next Page --->

Return to the Main Page

[hit00001.gif]-[hit00001.gif]